Can the Real King Arthur Be Identified as Athrwys of Gwent?

The search for the real King Arthur has occupied the pages of countless books. Often, this investigation is focused on any hidden traces of Arthur’s existence. A method used by some other researchers, however, is to try to identify the legendary figure of Arthur with a known historical person. Athrwys of Gwent, the son of King Meurig, is one such historical person. In the late eighteenth through to the early twentieth century, he was an extremely popular candidate for the real King Arthur. Is this old theory worth another look?

Athrwys of Gwent was the son of a king named Meurig. This dynasty ruled over much of southeast Wales. Although the borders were not always consistent it generally included the historic regions of Glamorgan and Gwent.

Athrwys also inherited the kingdom of Ergyng, since he was the eldest son of Onbrawst, the daughter of that kingdom’s ruler, Gwrgan the Great. The kingdom of Ergyng encompassed a large portion of what is now Herefordshire and Gloucestershire along the Welsh border. Thus, Athrwys was the heir to a large kingdom covering the entire southeast corner of Wales and some of what is now England.

Athrwys’ father, Meurig, was the son of Tewdrig. Tewdrig was a famous, powerful king and later religious figure of the area. He is remembered in Catholic tradition as a saint. The members of this dynasty feature prominently in an important document called the Book of Llandaff. This is a record of various grants of land from the kings of southeast Wales to the church.

Why Has Athrwys Been Rejected as the Real King Arthur?

For a long time, Athrwys was an extremely popular candidate for the real King Arthur among scholars who studied southeast Wales. It appears that this proposal first appeared in 1747, in Thomas Carte’s A General History of England. However, after the early twentieth century, scholars in general turned away from this theory. Why did this happen?

There are two main reasons why this identification has been rejected as untenable. Firstly, the name “Athrwys” is obviously quite dissimilar to the name “Arthur.” Some arguments have been made that this name really comes from “Antres.” However, the more significant objection to this theory about the real King Arthur is to do with chronology. Although various earlier historians placed Athrwys in the 6th century, it came to be more widely accepted that he actually lived thoroughly in the 7th century. This would place him about a century after Arthur’s time. On this basis, he obviously cannot have been the real King Arthur.

In conflict with this trend over the past century, recent archaeological evidence suggests that a re-examination of the evidence is justified. The hill fort of Dinas Powys is right in the heart of southeast Wales. In recent years archaeologists have discovered that it was a political and tribute center of immense status. The grand stone walls which look like something out of the Norman era (and were formerly interpreted as such) are now known to have been constructed in the 6th or 7th century. Given that there was only room for a single household to live here, these massive defensive works point to very high status kings.

Regarding the material culture found at this site dating to this era, Doctor Andrew Seaman has written that “the quality and quantity of the early medieval material from Dinas Powys is thus far unparalleled in Wales.” The presence of high status material culture as well as the massive display of power in the form of defensive works is very conspicuous. Given Arthur’s legendary high status in Britain in this very era, we are justified in looking for him again in this part of Britain.

Revised Chronologies of Athrwys’ Dynasty

The archaeological research is very interesting. It suggests that the center of power in Britain (excluding the Anglo-Saxon territory) in the 6th century may have been in southeast Wales. Of the dynasty that ruled over that area, the only one whose name bears any similarity at all to “Arthur” is Athrwys. Yet, he is not generally placed in Arthur’s time.

Independent of the issue of Athrwys potentially being connected to the Arthurian legends, some scholars have recently supported a return to the earlier chronology for his dynasty. Welsh historian Brian Davies, in New Welsh Review, supported reducing the dates of this dynasty by about a century. More recently, scholar David Farmer, editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Saints: Fifth Edition, presented a similar chronology, placing Athrwys in the 6th century. Historian Timothy Venning also writes favorably of this chronology, although without any definitive statements one way or the other. Even Patrick Sims-Williams, who favors the later chronology, explained in 2019 that the key foundation for the late dates for this dynasty is far from definitive.

But what is the key foundation for the late dates? The evidence comes from the Annales Cambriae, a chronicle from the 10th century that records the death of Ffernfael son of Ithel in 775. His father Ithel is widely assumed to be the same as Ithel the grandson of Athrwys, who did have a son named Ffernfael. With Ithel’s son Ffernfael dying in 775, Ithel’s grandfather Athrwys cannot have lived any earlier than the 7th century.

However, as Sims-Williams himself explained in 2019, this argument assumes that there were no repeated pairs of names. Yet, we know that both “Ithel” and “Ffernfael” were popular names in this dynasty. In fact, the Harleian MS 3859 (the earliest genealogical record for the kings of medieval Wales) records another Ithel of the same line who lived a few generations later. There is no reason why the Ffernfael mentioned in the Annales Cambriae cannot have been the son of this later Ithel. An examination of more evidence can help to clarify this issue.

One example of such evidence is the fact that the Book of Llandaff shows that Athrwys was a contemporary of bishop Oudoceus early in his tenure. Oudoceus was the son of King Budic of Brittany, dated by scholar Peter Bartrum and others to about 500. Therefore, Oudoceus is unlikely to have been born any later than 540. If Athrwys was his contemporary early in his tenure as bishop, that places Athrwys in the 6th century.

Even more explicit evidence is the fact that the Book of Llandaff presents Athrwys as a king giving grants of land in the presence of clergy who were disciples of bishop Dubricius. Since Dubricius was born in about 465, this would likewise place Athrwys in the 6th century.

The Life of St Cadoc, dating to a few decades before the Book of Llandaff, identifies Athrwys’ grandfather Tewdrig with Cadoc’s great-great-grandfather Tewdrig. Since Cadoc was definitely born in the early 6th century (as all scholars acknowledge), this would definitely place Athrwys in the 6th century.

These pieces of evidence, and more, have traditionally been dismissed as mistakes in the records. However, this interpretation of the evidence has been determined by the accepted chronology, rather than the chronology being moulded by the evidence. Given the fragility of the foundation of the late chronology, the reverse would surely be preferable.

For us to even entertain the idea that Athrwys might have been the real King Arthur, it is not enough to show that he lived at the right time. We also need to establish that he had the right name. Is this the case? Or does the evidence really show that his name came from “Antres”?

The idea that his name was originally Antres comes from a comparison between a land grant in the Book of Llandaff and a parallel version in the Llancarfan charters. In the latter, the name “Andres” appears in a list of witnesses immediately after “Meurig and his sons.” It is assumed that this is Athrwys, who appears in the parallel list in the Book of Llandaff. However, we cannot interpret “Andres” as being the name of one of Meurig’s aforementioned sons, because the name after Andres is made the son of a different person. It would not make sense for the list to mention Meurig’s “sons,” plural, and then name only one of them. More logically, the sons are simply left unnamed, and Andres is someone else entirely. Notably, the narrative leading up to this list of witnesses explicitly refers to a certain Andrus son of Morgan. This is undoubtedly the Andres who then appears in the witness list.

If we reject this supposed origin for Athrwys’ name, what can we conclude? Well, this is not a name that appears in many other records from other dynasties, so there is no evidence that this was a legitimate name in its own right. It might be a corruption in every instance. As it happens, there are some other medieval documents that refer to individuals named “Arthwys,” with the “r” before the “th.” Other individuals appear as “Arthrwys.” In fact, there is at least one individual who appeared first as “Arthwys” but then as “Athrwys” in a later document.

With this in mind, it is quite possible that all of these similar names, some of which are directly seen to have been exchanged for each other, were all variations of the same name. Although there is no direct confirmation of it, perhaps they are all evolutions of “Arthurus” or “Arturus,” which were common Latin forms of the name “Arthur.” Alternatively, they could come from the form “Artus” which is seen on the Modena Archivolt (an early depiction of the Arthurian tales) and which seems to be a Breton form of the name “Arthur.”

In conclusion, we can see that the idea that Athrwys son of Meurig was the real King Arthur is a theory worth considering. Recent archaeological research has revealed that southeast Wales was the site of a very high-status dynasty in Arthur’s time. The material culture is “unparalleled in all of Wales.” Given the various traditions that place Arthur in that region, this strongly supports the suggestion that he really was based there.

Athrwys is the obvious candidate from that dynasty to have been the real King Arthur. Although scholarship over the past century has placed Athrwys a century too late to be the real King Arthur, we appear to be seeing a shift back to the previous chronology. Certainly, there is good evidence to place Athrwys in the 6th century rather than the 7th.

While it is not possible to confirm that his name comes from “Arthur,” it appears to be related to the attested forms “Arthrwys” and “Arthwys.” With this in mind, it could reasonably be an evolution of the attested Latin form “Arturus” or the Breton “Artus.”